Brink Lindsey, author of "Culture of Success", believes that parents from lower income families typically produce children who don’t do as well in school due to the lack of parental involvement due to the high number of hours spent working, the lack of motivation from their parents to develop good study habits, and lower income parents not obtaining degrees or attending college. Lindsey uses studies and statistics to substantiate his claim throughout the text. He also brings up stereotypical reasons lower income children do poorly in school and invalidates them with his research.
Lindsey believes something is deterring low-income families from going to college. He begins by giving statistics from a study performed by Harvard economists Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz showing that supply of college graduates is down significantly in 2005 as opposed to 1980 . Lindsey points out that in 2006, minorities were the most prominently affected with this problem when it comes to graduating with a degree. He uses statistics frequently to show that it’s not just money but the way the children are raised that contribute to why they are not attending college or finishing college with a degree. Lindsey quotes studies performed by Sociologist Susan E. Mayer and Psychologist Anders Ericsson stating that wealthier families encourage their children to develop better study habits and end up putting them in better, more competitive schools to foster these habits that end up helping them later in life. Lindsey states that the circumstances are not the same for the children who lie on or below the poverty line. Lindsey suggests that the best solution is to help these families adapt to the quickly changing economic system by utilizing government funded programs and ending some that aren't currently fostering growth within the country.
Are lower income families really at a disadvantage when it comes to higher education? Brink Lindsey, vice president of research at the conservative Cato institute and author of "Culture of Success", seems to think so. According to Lindsey, higher income families tend to do better overall than lower income families primarily due to their upbringing. Lindsey states that higher income families tend to place their children in better schools than what is available to lower income families. Lindsey makes the statement that it’s not money that’s the problem but the lack of skills and aptitude needed for higher education.(453) We see this discussed even more today in the political circuit as America’s education system continues to lag behind other countries such as Finland or South Korea.
"Inflation of Tuition" by Matt Phillips
Lindsey states that as of 2003, 80 percent of high school seniors from families in the top 20 percent of income enrolled in college the fall after graduation, while only 49 percent from families in the lowest 40 percent did so.(453) One of the main explanations thought to contribute to this significant gap is the income difference between families. Lindsey questioned the true reason behind why college tuition costs have risen so drastically and compares the rate of the increase to inflation.(453) He states that the real reason why we've seen such a drastic drop in graduation rates the expenses continue to multiply due to the huge rise in college tuition. But then later on, states that he doesn't consider income a deterring factor for why the college admission rates have decreased, instead choosing to lay blame with the parents of the students stating it must be how they are raised.(453)
Lindsey believes subsidizing education would do nothing for a student that has not been taught to work hard and strive for achievement and inevitably would do little good for students if programs were cut. Lindsey quotes a study by James Heckman, a Nobel Prize winning economist says that income is just an additional factor that sits on top of other variables such as parent education. Heckman found that family income was not important when getting students into college. He utilized the Armed Forces Qualification Test, and discovered that African Americans and Hispanics are accepted into college at rates that are much higher than whites when at the same AFQT level, regardless of their families income.(453) The problem with the test was that many African Americans and Hispanics lacked the skills needed to actually pass the test in the first place.(453) This leads Lindsey to believe that income has nothing to do with whether these minorities go to college, rather the lack of skills to actually do the work.(454)
Lindsey then turns to sociology and states that lower income could still be a contributing factor for a lower rate for college graduates. Lower income families tend to send their children to schools that are less funded thus not obtaining the level of education students that go to better funded schools might have access to.(454) Lindsey states that there are studies that show parents that have access to more money could allow them to be more invested in their child's education and allow them a lower stress environment for the parents. Susan E. Mayer, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, states in her book "What Money Can’t Buy", that Government has done a relatively good job at meeting the basic needs of under income families. She states that increasing money from the government would do very little good in the end. Lindsey is clear in indicating that government funded programs shouldn't be cut, rather that those programs have been "successful in meeting a child's basic needs."(454) Essentially saying that money can only get you so far, then it isn't the money that affects your ability to succeed, it's “you”. (454)
Lindsey states that if lack of money isn’t the answer then it must be culture. Successful people such as athletes or chess masters study and practice on a daily basis to hone their craft. These individuals study and practice many hours a day. Children in the upper-middle class tend to develop the skills and motivation that is required to be a good student based off of the theory that those parents push their children harder to succeed and they began their training earlier in life. Lindsey theorizes that lower income families tend to not teach these values into their children and thus those children fail to reap the rewards of those teachings later in life.(454) Lindsey does not cover the fate of those who try to become successful and fail at achieving it whether it be due to competition losses or regular supply and demand. Not everyone can become a "superstar" regardless of income, culture, or race.
Lindsey features a study by child psychologists Betty Hart and Todd Risley that highlights the differences in how a child develops based off of the amount and type of interaction from their parents. They observed several families over the course of a few years and determined a direct correlation between how often the parent would speak to the child and what they would say to them to how quickly the childs own speech would develop. This study highlighted the difference between "professional" parents who spoke more to their child and were more positive and "welfare" parents who spoke less than half to the child and were mainly negative.(455) The direct product of this interaction between parent and child is used as evidence by Lindsey to highlight that money had no baring on this situation because "talking to your kids is free." Lindsey does not factor in that the welfare parents might work away from home more hours than "professional" parents and instead uses this study to infer that welfare parents must not be as loving towards their children as "professional" parents because of this. It also should be noted that "professional parent" is not defined within the article. Lindsey states that children from well off homes generally get more chances to interact with their parents and therefore end up talking more and having a better vocabulary.(455)
"Pressure to Be Average" by Roland G. Fryer
Lindsey approaches the acting “white” stigma by referencing a study by Roland Fryer, Harvard economist, that determined white students tend to become much more popular as their GPA increases. At the same time, Fryer found minority groups such as African Americans and Hispanics tend to become less popular as their GPA rises. It should be noted that although controversial, these results have vaired and haven't been reproduced through quantitative studies but has been corroborated by ethographic studies.(455) Lindsey finds that these results have been reproduced in different ethnic groups globally and gives examples of the "Buraku outcastes in Japan, the Maori in New Zealand, the British working class, and Italian immigrants in the 1950s Boston." Lindsey states that it is human nature to form a social groups and emparts that being a part of the group means seeming like a solid unit with no unique attributes that might allign a group member with a mainstream-esque sucess.(455)
From a Lindsey's self proclaimed libertarian point of view, it is everyone’s responsibility for the “healthy functioning of a free society.”(455) However, Lindsey also states that some people do start off with a disadvantage due to their upbringing. To counter balance these issues, Lindsey states there could be more Preschool enrichment programs. He also states that wage subsidies could help bring lower class families into the middle class range. Lindsey states that by giving back more money to the families and involving their children in these education programs at young ages, we should see an increase in students who attend college.(456) Demand indicates that there's a need for more skilled workers in the economy. Lindsey states that we need to quit blaming the economic system.(456) He feels that as a society, we need to start helping people adapt. Money is not the problem. Regardless, there is no gurantee to success, no matter the background.
Works Cited:
Documents:
Lindsey, Brink "Culture of Success." The New Republic. 12 Mar 2008: 30-31. Rpt. in Writing in the Disciplines: A Reader and Rhetoric for Academic Writers. 6th ed. Ed. Mary Lynch Kennedy and William J. Kennedy. Boston: Pearson, 2009. 452-56. Print.
1. Gooch
2. Jessica Bergren
3.
4.
5.
Brink Lindsey, author of "Culture of Success", believes that parents from lower income families typically produce children who don’t do as well in school due to the lack of parental involvement due to the high number of hours spent working, the lack of motivation from their parents to develop good study habits, and lower income parents not obtaining degrees or attending college. Lindsey uses studies and statistics to substantiate his claim throughout the text. He also brings up stereotypical reasons lower income children do poorly in school and invalidates them with his research.
Lindsey believes something is deterring low-income families from going to college. He begins by giving statistics from a study performed by Harvard economists Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz showing that supply of college graduates is down significantly in 2005 as opposed to 1980 . Lindsey points out that in 2006, minorities were the most prominently affected with this problem when it comes to graduating with a degree. He uses statistics frequently to show that it’s not just money but the way the children are raised that contribute to why they are not attending college or finishing college with a degree. Lindsey quotes studies performed by Sociologist Susan E. Mayer and Psychologist Anders Ericsson stating that wealthier families encourage their children to develop better study habits and end up putting them in better, more competitive schools to foster these habits that end up helping them later in life. Lindsey states that the circumstances are not the same for the children who lie on or below the poverty line. Lindsey suggests that the best solution is to help these families adapt to the quickly changing economic system by utilizing government funded programs and ending some that aren't currently fostering growth within the country.
Are lower income families really at a disadvantage when it comes to higher education? Brink Lindsey, vice president of research at the conservative Cato institute and author of "Culture of Success", seems to think so. According to Lindsey, higher income families tend to do better overall than lower income families primarily due to their upbringing. Lindsey states that higher income families tend to place their children in better schools than what is available to lower income families. Lindsey makes the statement that it’s not money that’s the problem but the lack of skills and aptitude needed for higher education.(453) We see this discussed even more today in the political circuit as America’s education system continues to lag behind other countries such as Finland or South Korea.
Lindsey states that as of 2003, 80 percent of high school seniors from families in the top 20 percent of income enrolled in college the fall after graduation, while only 49 percent from families in the lowest 40 percent did so.(453) One of the main explanations thought to contribute to this significant gap is the income difference between families. Lindsey questioned the true reason behind why college tuition costs have risen so drastically and compares the rate of the increase to inflation.(453) He states that the real reason why we've seen such a drastic drop in graduation rates the expenses continue to multiply due to the huge rise in college tuition. But then later on, states that he doesn't consider income a deterring factor for why the college admission rates have decreased, instead choosing to lay blame with the parents of the students stating it must be how they are raised.(453)
Lindsey believes subsidizing education would do nothing for a student that has not been taught to work hard and strive for achievement and inevitably would do little good for students if programs were cut. Lindsey quotes a study by James Heckman, a Nobel Prize winning economist says that income is just an additional factor that sits on top of other variables such as parent education. Heckman found that family income was not important when getting students into college. He utilized the Armed Forces Qualification Test, and discovered that African Americans and Hispanics are accepted into college at rates that are much higher than whites when at the same AFQT level, regardless of their families income.(453) The problem with the test was that many African Americans and Hispanics lacked the skills needed to actually pass the test in the first place.(453) This leads Lindsey to believe that income has nothing to do with whether these minorities go to college, rather the lack of skills to actually do the work.(454)
Lindsey then turns to sociology and states that lower income could still be a contributing factor for a lower rate for college graduates. Lower income families tend to send their children to schools that are less funded thus not obtaining the level of education students that go to better funded schools might have access to.(454) Lindsey states that there are studies that show parents that have access to more money could allow them to be more invested in their child's education and allow them a lower stress environment for the parents. Susan E. Mayer, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, states in her book "What Money Can’t Buy", that Government has done a relatively good job at meeting the basic needs of under income families. She states that increasing money from the government would do very little good in the end. Lindsey is clear in indicating that government funded programs shouldn't be cut, rather that those programs have been "successful in meeting a child's basic needs."(454) Essentially saying that money can only get you so far, then it isn't the money that affects your ability to succeed, it's “you”. (454)
Lindsey states that if lack of money isn’t the answer then it must be culture. Successful people such as athletes or chess masters study and practice on a daily basis to hone their craft. These individuals study and practice many hours a day. Children in the upper-middle class tend to develop the skills and motivation that is required to be a good student based off of the theory that those parents push their children harder to succeed and they began their training earlier in life. Lindsey theorizes that lower income families tend to not teach these values into their children and thus those children fail to reap the rewards of those teachings later in life.(454) Lindsey does not cover the fate of those who try to become successful and fail at achieving it whether it be due to competition losses or regular supply and demand. Not everyone can become a "superstar" regardless of income, culture, or race.
Lindsey features a study by child psychologists Betty Hart and Todd Risley that highlights the differences in how a child develops based off of the amount and type of interaction from their parents. They observed several families over the course of a few years and determined a direct correlation between how often the parent would speak to the child and what they would say to them to how quickly the childs own speech would develop. This study highlighted the difference between "professional" parents who spoke more to their child and were more positive and "welfare" parents who spoke less than half to the child and were mainly negative.(455) The direct product of this interaction between parent and child is used as evidence by Lindsey to highlight that money had no baring on this situation because "talking to your kids is free." Lindsey does not factor in that the welfare parents might work away from home more hours than "professional" parents and instead uses this study to infer that welfare parents must not be as loving towards their children as "professional" parents because of this. It also should be noted that "professional parent" is not defined within the article. Lindsey states that children from well off homes generally get more chances to interact with their parents and therefore end up talking more and having a better vocabulary.(455)
From a Lindsey's self proclaimed libertarian point of view, it is everyone’s responsibility for the “healthy functioning of a free society.”(455) However, Lindsey also states that some people do start off with a disadvantage due to their upbringing. To counter balance these issues, Lindsey states there could be more Preschool enrichment programs. He also states that wage subsidies could help bring lower class families into the middle class range. Lindsey states that by giving back more money to the families and involving their children in these education programs at young ages, we should see an increase in students who attend college.(456) Demand indicates that there's a need for more skilled workers in the economy. Lindsey states that we need to quit blaming the economic system.(456) He feels that as a society, we need to start helping people adapt. Money is not the problem. Regardless, there is no gurantee to success, no matter the background.
Works Cited:
Documents:
Lindsey, Brink "Culture of Success." The New Republic. 12 Mar 2008: 30-31. Rpt. in Writing in the Disciplines: A Reader and Rhetoric for Academic Writers. 6th ed. Ed. Mary Lynch Kennedy and William J. Kennedy. Boston: Pearson, 2009. 452-56. Print.
Images:
Phillips, Matt. Cost of College on the Rise(Again). 2011. Chart. FreakonomicsWeb. 7 Oct 2012. <http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/10/27/cost-of-college-on-the-rise-again/>.
Fryer, Roland. Pressure to be Average. 2006. Chart. Harvard EconomicsWeb. 7 Oct 2012. <http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/fryer/files/aw_ednext.pdf>.